She was a do-nothing as a police chief – waiting until the last year of her term to try to effect some crime reduction (IMHO she was just trying to pad her resume for any post-chief consulting gigs) – and now she is suing the City of Milwaukee because her successor is paid more then she was:

Milwaukee’s first female police chief contends that she was discriminated against when the Fire and Police Commission chose to pay her successor a higher salary than she received.

Nannette Hegerty filed a gender discrimination complaint with the Equal Rights Division of the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development this month, Assistant City Attorney Don Schriefer said Sunday.

At stake could be thousands of dollars of back pay as well as a boost to Hegerty’s pension, which is based on her last three years of salary.
[…]
Hegerty came to the chief’s job after serving as U.S. marshal in the eastern district of Wisconsin. She left earning a salary of $132,544. [Link: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel]

I am not sure how somebody can sue to retroactively have their compensation raised for a contract that they voluntary entered into and have completed. That just seems wrong to me. It is a rip-off to taxpayers if city officials just cave to make their life more comfortable at the expense of the taxpayers and submit to her Lawfare/Extortion.

What about her successor, Chief Flynn?

Flynn was hired last year after 20 years as police chief of five different departments. Flynn’s salary of $143,881 is 8.5% higher than what Hegerty made, but less than the $155,000 he received in his previous position as police commissioner for Springfield, Mass.

Hopefully, with the hiring of Flynn, the line of PC-driven Milwaukee Police Chiefs will stop.

This lawsuit should be thrown out. She should be chastised by the press and forced to pay court costs.

(U//FOUO) On 24 October 2007, crewmembers aboard a Reagan-Washington National to Milwaukee General Mitchell International Airport flight reported to a Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) flying in non-mission status that they noticed suspicious behavior by four passengers.

One of the subjects entered and exited the rear aircraft lavatory three times and failed to comply with crewmembers’ verbal instructions. The FFDO seated himself near this subject to observe his behavior. Shortly afterward, two more of the subjects moved into the aisles and entered both lavatories. After one of the subjects vacated the rear left lavatory, the FFDO searched it, noting that the mirror above the sink was not properly latched.

He exited the lavatory and a fourth subject was waiting second in line with a passenger in front of him. The FFDO offered the fourth subject access to the right lavatory, but the subject declined, claiming the right lavatory was dirty.The FFDO noted the right lavatory was clean, and the subject reluctantly entered the right lavatory and remained there for an extended period of time. (TSA/SD-10-3849-07)

(U//FOUO) TSA Office of Intelligence Comment: Although there is no information that the aircraft was being specifically targeted for a future terrorist attack, the actions of the four passengers are highly suspicious. FFDO confirmation of possible tampering of the lavatory mirror in one of the lavatories could be indicative of an attempt to locate concealment areas for smuggling criminal contraband or terrorist materials. In this case, it appears the left lavatory was the sole area of interest for the passengers. One subject’s excuse that the right lavatory was dirty when it was confirmed to be clean shows the four passengers had a specific, operational objective. Although unconfirmed at this time, this incident has many of the elements of pre-operational terrorist planning.

I am a US Citizen living in Milwaukee WI. I have interests in IT, information security, CyberWar, national security, fifth generation warfare (5GW), history, public policy, entrepreneurship, economics, pop culture and the future.